Burnham v. Coffinberry

• Decision Date: 08 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-209.,02-209.
• Citation: 76 P.3d 296,2003 WY 109
• Parties: Margot BURNHAM, Appellant (Defendant), v. Richard A. COFFINBERRY, as Trustee of the Richard A. Coffinberry Living Trust, dated June 8, 1995, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

76 P.3d 296

2003 WY 109

Margot BURNHAM, Appellant (Defendant), v. Richard A. COFFINBERRY, as Trustee of the Richard A. Coffinberry Living Trust, dated June 8, 1995, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 02-209.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

September 8, 2003.

Representing Appellant: Edward G. Luhm of Scott, Shelledy and Luhm, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Jerry D. Williams of Williams Law Office, Thermopolis, Wyoming.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

HILL, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellant, Margot Burnham (Burnham), asserts that the district court erred in failing to grant her motion to dismiss this action, or to have stayed these proceedings pending resolution of related litigation between the parties in California. It is also her contention that the district court erred in applying the law of Wyoming to this matter rather than the law of California as it relates to the dissolution of a relationship between unmarried persons who cohabit and commingle their assets. Appellee, Richard A. Coffinberry as Trustee of the Richard A. Coffinberry Living Trust (Coffinberry), counters that the district court's orders were proper in all respects. We will affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Burnham advances these issues:

1. Whether the district court erred by failing to grant [Burnham's] motion to dismiss or stay this litigation in light of the existence of a previously commenced foreign action which placed into controversy properties owned by the parties and proceeds realized from the sale and refinancing secured therefrom, including real property located in Hot Springs County, Wyoming, which are also the subject matter of [Coffinberry's] quiet title action herein?

2. Whether the district court erroneously applied the law of this State as it pertains to actions between unmarried persons who cohabit and commingle assets in granting [Coffinberry's] motions for summary judgment?

Coffinberry approaches the issues somewhat differently:

1. Did the District Court properly apply Wyoming statutes and case law in denying [Burnham's] Motions to Dismiss pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(3)?

2. Did the trial court properly grant summary judgment?

3. Does the Minute Order and Statement of Decision, dated September 25, 2002, of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, in Burnham v. Coffinberry, Case No. 00 CC 10796 render [Burnham's] appeal moot?

FACTS

[¶ 3] The controversy at hand arose out of a close personal and business relationship between Burnham and Coffinberry which endured from 1979 until 1993. Burnham contended that she and Coffinberry jointly acquired real property both in California and in Wyoming (as well as other states) and that they cohabited in their principal residence during the duration of their relationship. They never married. Burnham contended that the Wyoming properties were acquired for their mutual benefit and were purchased, in part, with funds obtained through a series of refinances of their principal residence.

[¶ 4] On September 8, 2000, Burnham filed an action in California, seeking to divide property jointly owned by her and Coffinberry, including the Wyoming property at issue here. On September 21, 2000, Coffinberry filed a complaint in the Wyoming district court, seeking to quiet title to all of the properties located in Hot Springs County in the name of his living trust. Burnham answered that complaint and included in her answer a motion to dismiss pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(3). Burnham contended that it was necessary for the California court to have jurisdiction over the Wyoming property so that it could "balance accounts" between the parties. Eventually, the district court denied Burnham's motion to dismiss and entered summary judgment in Coffinberry's favor with respect to all of the Wyoming properties. With respect to California property, those matters were decided by the California courts, largely in favor of Burnham.

DISCUSSION

Motion to Dismiss

[¶ 5] We have recognized that a district court's ruling on a matter related to venue is measured by the abuse of discretion standard. Rivermeadows, Inc. v. Zwaanshoek Holding, 761 P.2d 662, 668 (Wyo.1988); and see SPS v. Thunder Basin Coal Company, 978 P.2d 1138, 1141, 1144-46 (Wyo.1999). Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Pasenelli v. Pasenelli, 2002 WY 159, ¶ 11, 57 P.3d 324, 329, ¶ 11 (citing Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo.1998)). We will enlarge our analysis somewhat by quoting this discussion from Professors Wright and Miller:

On a motion under Rule 12(b)(3), facts must be shown that will defeat plaintiff's assertion of venue. A number of courts have concluded that the burden of doing so is on defendant, since venue is a "personal privilege" and a lack of venue should be established by the party asserting it. On the other hand, several courts have imposed the burden on plaintiff in keeping with the rule applied in the context of jurisdiction defenses. The latter view seems correct inasmuch as it is plaintiff's obligation to institute his action in a permissible forum, both in terms of jurisdiction and venue. There seems to be little justification for distinguishing between the two in determining the placing of the burden. If a defect in venue is not demonstrated, the court will deny the motion to dismiss. However, motions under 12(b)(3) may also be denied or held in abeyance whenever the court determines that further information is needed in order to establish clearly whether venue is proper.

5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Civil § 1352, at 263-65 (1990).

[¶ 6] Burnham first contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to dismiss premised on W.R.C.P. 12(b)(3). That rule provides:

(b) How Presented.—Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficiency of process; (5) insufficiency of service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion making any of these defenses shall be made before pleading if a further pleading is permitted. No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion. If a pleading sets forth a claim for relief to which the adverse party is not required to serve a responsive pleading, the adverse party may assert at the trial any defense in law or fact to that claim for relief. If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶ 7] Burnham contends that the Wyoming district court should have dismissed the Wyoming action, or in the alternative stayed it, pending an unraveling of the parties' personal and business relationship in California. The argument championed by Burnham tends to confuse the concepts of jurisdiction, venue, and forum non conveniens in this regard, as well as the concepts of civil actions generally and matters related to the dissolution of marriage more specifically. Burnham, who is a resident of California, filed a civil action in California purporting to be in the nature of dissolution and winding up of a business relationship, as well as a personal relationship. It is her contention that the Wyoming properties at issue here are a part of both the business and personal relationship. Of course, California appears to be the proper forum for that action both in terms of jurisdiction as well as venue. Coffinberry is a resident of Wyoming and he has substantial real estate holdings in Hot Springs County. He filed a complaint in Wyoming to quiet title to that property, at least in part because Burnham claimed that the Wyoming property should be divided between them in the California action. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-32-201 (LexisNexis 2003) provides:

An action may be brought by a person in possession of real property against any person who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determining the adverse estate or interest. The person bringing the action may hold possession himself or by his tenant.

Although Coffinberry's action does not fit squarely into the provisions of Wyoming quiet title statutes, Burnham does not question their applicability and Coffinberry did, in essence, contend that Burnham's California litigation amounted to a denial of clear title in Coffinberry. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-32-204 (LexisNexis 2003). As to one of the properties at issue, Burnham and Coffinberry were cotenants and Burnham had deeded several other properties at issue to Coffinberry. Coffinberry purchased the remainder from third parties. Within the chapter of Wyoming statutes concerned with venue, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-5-101 (LexisNexis 2003) provides:

(a) Actions for the following causes shall be brought in the county in which the subject of the action is situate, except as provided in W.S. 1-5-102 and 1-5-103:

(i) For the recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein;

(ii) For the partition of real property;

(iii) For the sale of

...